Where did the Ripper likely live?

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Then your assessment of the evidence is very narrow minded. There's no question at all that certain prostitutes would have had specific locations that they took clients to, but to suggest that not only was Kate observant enough to notice Morris's pattern of movements during a one hour period, one night per week, and that she would then presume that Mitre Square was the best place in the area to take any clients she might pick up during that hour is, I think, bordering on the silly.

The aim of the prostitute - full time, part time or occasional - was to conduct business with their client as quickly as possible, by almost any means, collect the money and move on, be that moving on to another client or to the pub or wherever. I just can't believe that Kate would have walked the journey from Bishopsgate station to Mitre Square for the sake of the knowledge that Morris would not be present for that hour (even if we presume she was aware of that fact), when in any case there was still the 3 entrances that any old person could enter from, including a police officer on the beat. Never mind Morris, the humble warehouse worker, a current police officer could have been the one to stumble across her 'in the act', less than an hour after she had been released from the station for another indiscretion! Hmm....

Having said all of that, I do agree with your assessment of the Ripper's home.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Colin Roberts]

Oh....and there is absolutely no way of knowing with certainty if Jack lived in the area.

You did well to 'justify' your presence, in this thread, Neil.



On a serious note, I must agree wholeheartedly:

"there is absolutely no way [absolutely no way, of any kind] of knowing with certainty if Jack lived in the area."

[Monty]

Adam,

I disagree.

Obviously, within that timeframe of 1am till 2am, Eddowes utilised that corner.

That's my assessment of the evidence.

Oh....and there is absolutely no way of knowing with certainty if Jack lived in the area.

Monty

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Indeed it's possible that Lawende didn't even see Eddowes but rather another woman/another couple entirely. But what do we really think the chances of that are? There's a great similarity to it, I think, to the Stride sightings in the lead up to her death earlier that night.

What it all comes down to is that it's very unlikely that Catherine would have bothered taking advantage of one spot for one hour out of every week when there was no certainty of her seclusion even then, and given the condition she was in on the night of her death, when there was so many other places that she could have taken potential clients.

And it doesn't make the attitudes of Harris and particularly Levy any less suspicious.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Steven Russell]

Thanks, Colin.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Colin Roberts]

Is not a perfectly elliptical model flawed in that it does not take into account population density? What I mean is that some streets and areas were more densely populated than others so would not this make it more likely that the Ripper lived in these places than more sparsely populated areas?
For example, in some of your diagrams, the Ripper is just as likely to have lived in the river as at any other location equidistant from the epicentre.

That is a very worthwhile question, Steve.

Mark Ripper, aka 'm_w_r', raised the same issue a few weeks ago, in the thread entitled "Laura Richards knows who the ripper was".

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the elliptical probability distribution is "flawed", with regard to this particular issue, - i.e. with regard to the fact that the underlying distribution of resident population was quite obviously non-uniform - but I would certainly concede that it is, perhaps, somewhat 'inadequate'.

Unfortunately, the task of calculating, and then re-allocating the portion of the probability distribution that covers the River Thames would be arduous, to say the very least.

Assuming that we were able to complete the task, with a reasonable degree of precision and accuracy, we might then feel compelled to calculate and re-allocate the portions of the probability distribution that cover the various basins of St. Katharine & London Docks, Spitalfields Market, Bishopsgate Goods Depot, the open thoroughfare of Whitechapel High Street, the empty lot on the corner of ..., etc.

At some point, in the very early stages of this whole process, the Law of Diminishing Returns would invariably take effect.

I believe that we must accept the relative 'inadequacies' of an elliptical probability distribution, as it would apply to the elusive 1888 residence of 'Jack the Ripper', and in so doing, remember that its sole purpose is to provide an enhancement of our investigative focus.

Those that would turn to geographic profiling, in hopes of actually being able to pinpoint the residence of a particular offender, should think again.

This isn't a Hollywood studio.

[Steven Russell]

This is very impressive stuff, Colin, and I can only claim to just about understand the maths so I hope you won't think me ignorant or arrogant when I ask the following:
Is not a perfectly elliptical model flawed in that it does not take into account population density? What I mean is that some streets and areas were more densely populated than others so would not this make it more likely that the Ripper lived in these places than more sparsely populated areas?
For example, in some of your diagrams, the Ripper is just as likely to have lived in the river as at any other location equidistant from the epicentre.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Colin Roberts]

I'll bet Emma Smith didn't think twice about making her way to the Parish of St. Anne Limehouse, on the evening before she was attacked.

The fact that she was seen there, by her fellow lodger, Margaret Hames, might suggest that many a Spitalfields dollymop was quite mobile.

. . .

But, would some 'commuter' that might have had a particular affinity for the sort of middle-aged, estranged, alcoholic, destitute dollymop that tended to flock to the environs of Spitalfields, from all other quarters of the metropolis, have had such a familiarity? With the broader surroundings, that is?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

It almost sounds as though you suspect that JtR would likely have been an immigrant (not necessarily from a different country, but someone new to the area) who knew his way around Whitechapel/Spitalfields, but had not yet learned a wide area?

But that last sentence suggests you suspect a commuter who really knows a very small area WELL -- well enough to kill and then escape undetected.

What are you saying?

"It almost sounds as though you suspect ..."

"But that last sentence suggests you suspect ..."

I do not "suspect" anything at all, with regard to where 'Jack the Ripper' might have resided, during the latter months of 1888.

I am simply suggesting a possibility!

That being that the remarkably narrow dispersion and pedal traversability of the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', could be the result of a perpetrator that was intimately familiar with its immediate vicinity, but much less familiar with its broader surroundings.

If Montague Druitt, for example, had harbored a particular affinity for the sort of middle-aged, estranged, alcoholic, destitute dollymop that tended to flock to the environs of Spitalfields, from all other quarters of the metropolis, then he might have chosen to spend his weekend evenings in the area that was to become the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper'; just as a modern-day 'Druitt' that harbors a particular affinity for curry, might choose to spend his weekend evenings strolling up and down Brick Lane, even though he actually resides in Blackheath.

Philip Hutchinson commutes by train, from Guildford to Whitechapel, three-or-four nights, each week, in order to conduct a guided 'Ripper' tour. In so doing, he has come to know the immediate vicinity of the 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', like the back of his hand. But, he is much less familiar with its broader surroundings.

I would contend that the 'local' inhabitants of the 'Whitechapel' area, in 1888, e.g. Emma Smith, Margaret Hames, ... and George Hutchinson, were actually quite familiar with the broader surroundings of the area, in which they resided.

Yet, 'Jack the Ripper', as far as we know, never struck in those broader surroundings, which included Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Mile End, Limehouse, Ratcliff, Shadwell, Wapping, Billingsgate, Ludgate, Newgate, St. Luke, etc.

Why?

Was he, perhaps, not particularly familiar with many of those areas?

I may be wrong to do so, but I am inclined to believe that many of his victims were quite familiar with many of these areas that constituted the broader surroundings of London's inner-most 'East End', in 1888.

It should be noted that I have not included the areas that constituted London's outer 'East End', in 1888, within the broader surroundings of its inner-most 'East End': Namely the Parishes of St. Mary Stratford Bow, Bromley St. Leonard, and All Saints Poplar.

There can be no rational justification for the consideration of these areas to have been 'local' to the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper'.

A case, in point: William Bury did not reside 'locally' to the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', during the latter months of 1888; and if he was, in fact, the 'Whitechapel Murder', then he was a 'commuter' serial killer.

..., there is more to the 'was Jack a local' question than the knowledge of streets. The movement of local people throughout the day should also be considered.

"The movement of local people throughout the day should also be considered."

Eh?

If the 'routine-activity space' of the typical Spitalfields denizen, in 1888, was actually larger than the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', then what I have attempted to convey, above, may actually be rather applicable.

As above, this might suggest that the remarkably narrow dispersion and pedal traversability of the 'killing field', is the result of a perpetrator that was intimately familiar with its immediate vicinity, but much less familiar with its broader surroundings: This suggesting, in turn, a 'commuter', as opposed to a 'marauder'.

But, of course, we don't know the size of the 'routine-activity space' of the typical Spitalfields denizen, in 1888.

In any case, the notion that the narrow dispersion and pedal traversability of the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', somehow suggests a greater likelihood that the 'Whitechapel Murderer' was a 'marauder' serial killer, is misconceived.

The bottom line is that a theoretical 'center' of an observed 'killing field' - any observed 'killing field' - is the single most likely place of residence of the offender. Period! No if's; no and's; no but's!

But, in the case of the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', its remarkably narrow dispersion and pedal traversability actually opens the door to a greater number of realistic and truly possible scenarios that involve a 'commuter' offender.

Note:

I did not say that it opens the door to a greater degree of probability that we are dealing with a 'commuter' offender!

I said that it opens the door to a greater number of realistic and truly possible scenarios that involve a 'commuter' offender!

~~~

So, where do I believe that 'Jack the Ripper' resided, during the latter months of 1888?

I plainly and simply do not know!

But, were I to embark upon some sort of investigative 'canvass' / 'random-search' endeavor; I would begin my search - in accordance with what will be a revision of my Geographic Profile Model - at the intersection of Thrawl Street and George Street, in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields; and move outward, in conjunction with the elliptical proportions of the accordant probability distribution.

~~~

I don't believe that a discussion regarding whether Catherine Eddowes was a prostitute is going to provide any insight as to "Where did the Ripper likely live?".

From the thread entitled "Laura Richards knows who the ripper was":

Nor is it entitled "Laura Richards knows who the ripper was".

The thread, from which I derived the overall quotation, is most certainly entitled "Laura Richards knows who the ripper was", Neil.

[Monty]

Hey Monty

Sorry but which evidence exactly do u mean? The fact she was killed in a dark corner??

Hi Sarah,

You agree with me alright.

The fact she was found drunk, the fact she gave a false name, her movements after release (if indeed Lewande did see her) and the location of her body.

That, to me, suggests she may have been soliciting.

However, Colin has a point, this should be moved to an appropriate thread.

Monty

[Monty]

I don't believe that a discussion regarding whether Catherine Eddowes was a prostitute is going to provide any insight as to "Where did the Ripper likely live?".

From the thread entitled "Laura Richards knows who the ripper was":

Nor is it entitled "Laura Richards knows who the ripper was".

Monty

[curious]

I'll bet Emma Smith didn't think twice about making her way to the Parish of St. Anne Limehouse, on the evening before she was attacked.

The fact that she was seen there, by her fellow lodger, Margaret Hames, might suggest that many a Spitalfields dollymop was quite mobile.
. . .

But, would some 'commuter' that might have had a particular affinity for the sort of middle-aged, estranged, alcoholic, destitute dollymop that tended to flock to the environs of Spitalfields, from all other quarters of the metropolis, have had such a familiarity? With the broader surroundings, that is?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

It almost sounds as though you suspect that JtR would likely have been an immigrant (not necessarily from a different country, but someone new to the area) who knew his way around Whitechapel/Spitalfields, but had not yet learned a wide area?

But that last sentence suggests you suspect a commuter who really knows a very small area WELL -- well enough to kill and then escape undetected.

What are you saying?

curious

[Colin Roberts]

As for whether or not he used the main thoroughfares for his escapes, I think it's fairly obvious that he did not.

It is not at all obvious that he did not!

This is demonstrated particularly well in the Mitre Square case, where his direction of escape - back towards the heart of the murder district - was made pretty clear courtesy of the discarded apron fragment.

I will grant you this particular instance.

His actual route is less clear, ...

Indeed!

..., it is clear he took the most direct route to the apron disposal location (the northern end of Goulston Street), ...

It most certainly is not!

For all we know; he might have wandered aimlessly into Goulston Street.

..., which meant negotiating a "maze" of smaller alleys which would doubtless have befuddled anyone without an intimate knowledge of the area: St. James Passage, Duke Street, Stoney Lane, New Goulston Street. This would have taken approximately five minutes and would have taken him directly to the northern end of Goulston Street which he had only to cross in order to dump the apron.

Jake has demonstrated conclusively that Stoney Lane was not accessible from Houndsditch, in 1888.

Of course, the fact that he did cross it suggests that his bolt-hole resided further east of the disposal location (unhappily for anyone angling for a West End toff).

No, it doesn't!

And, let's desist with the straw-man argumentation.

Just because someone isn't thoroughly convinced that 'Jack the Ripper' was a so-called 'marauder' serial killer, does not mean that he or she is "angling for a West End toff"!

You generate this sort of 'spin' all too often!

The question is, how much further. Well, if it was appreciably further, it would make him one of the "very rare" commuters (according to David Canter).

You appear to be quoting David Canter.

Where? Where, pray tell, has David Canter indicated that 'commuter' serial killers are "very rare"?

I am inclined to believe that you will not be able to answer that question!

Hence, I consider it more than likely that the killer was based in Whitechapel or Spitalfields.

So do I! More or less!



Accumulation of Probability Distribution (Elliptical): Murder-Site Mean-Center, to Extent of Fifty Percent Accumulation (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011

50.00% Accumulation of Probability Distribution

The original (unrevised) manifestation of my Geographic Profile Model would suggest a perceptual probability¹ of 50.00% that 'Jack the Ripper' resided somewhere within the above color-shaded elliptical region, during the latter months of 1888.

In other words, it would suggest that we should perceive a chance of as much as 1-in-2 that 'Jack the Ripper' resided somewhere - during the latter months of 1888 - within the above color-shaded elliptical region, having an area of 1.00 square-miles.

As it stands, my unrevised model, which is based solely upon the murder-site mean-center, i.e. the southwest corner of the intersection of Wentworth Street and Osborn Street, in the Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel, places Hutchinson's self-proclaimed 1888 domicile within the 89th percentile of the probability distribution pertaining to the elusive 1888 residence of 'Jack the Ripper'.

My revised model, which will be based upon the murder-site mean-center and a theoretical murder-site median-center, will see its focal point at the intersection of Thrawl Street and George Street, in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields, and will possibly place the Victoria Home for Working Men within the 95th percentile of its accordant probability distribution.

George Hutchinson has geography on his side! Period!

More so than any other legitimate person of interest!

So, you really don't need to lobby for his candidacy, in a discussion regarding that particular issue: i.e. ... geography.

You really don't!

I can't think of a single "commuter" serial killer who approached, dispatched and disposed of his victims within very easy walking distance of each other.

Neither can I!

But, contrary to popular misconception, a 'killing field', in which the observed parameters are narrowly dispersed and easily traversable, could be - that's could be - indicative of a perpetrator that was intimately familiar with its immediate vicinity, but perhaps not as familiar with its broader surroundings.

I'll bet Emma Smith didn't think twice about making her way to the Parish of St. Anne Limehouse, on the evening before she was attacked.

The fact that she was seen there, by her fellow lodger, Margaret Hames, might suggest that many a Spitalfields dollymop was quite mobile.

What would have prevented George Hutchinson from venturing that far, in search of his prey?

Surely, he was familiar with his broader surroundings!

But, would some 'commuter' that might have had a particular affinity for the sort of middle-aged, estranged, alcoholic, destitute dollymop that tended to flock to the environs of Spitalfields, from all other quarters of the metropolis, have had such a familiarity? With the broader surroundings, that is?

[Sarah]

Yes, we cannot concluded with certainty however the evidence suggests she was.

Hey Monty

Sorry but which evidence exactly do u mean? The fact she was killed in a dark corner??

[Sarah]

Sometimes I have wondered if Eddowes knew her killer and could explain why she stopped whilst walking home from prison. In keeping with this thread then if this was so perhaps he was someone living near to Eddowes or the area she was killed. Only a thought which just popped in right this second.

Oh and not that I'm agreeing with Monty or anything but she had been locker up to sober up so probably was in a better state than earlier in the evening so "may" have been aware of Morris' route but I'm not convinced.

Sarah

[Colin Roberts]

Having looked at maps of the Whitechapel area, I can't see that there are 'a maze of alleyways' in the area.

Contrary to a widely held misconception, the 'Whitechapel' area, in 1888, did not consist of a 'maze of alleyways' that would have necessitated an intimate 'local' knowledge, on the part of 'Jack the Ripper'.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of the area's courts and alleyways were cul-de-sacs that lead nowhere.

If one wishes to see a 'maze of alleyways', then one should take a look at the 1873 Ordnance Survey sheets that cover the City of London.